Self drive software and half sized EVs

GreatApe

Piddles wrote: »

Go GreatApe! You are talking a lot of sense. Autonomous Vehicles are on the periphery of my professional interests, and in environmental terms is right at the top my list of what the government can do to achieve its 2050 carbon neutral target, by providing a suitable regulatory framework and placing an immediate moratorium on all road, rail and aviation capital projects.

Sorry if this is a bit lazy, but here's a short extract from a piece I wrote for some customers (AV: Autonomous Vehicles, IO: Individually Owned, ICE: Internal Combustion Engine):


Conceptually, GreatApe has hit the nail on the head. For intra-urban travel, his half width pods for road capacity. For inter-urban travel, platooning road trains made up of minibus sized pods that add themselves/peel off as required, with no artificial upper speed limit.

For the context of this forum, the additional green element is that we'll only have to make less than 20% of the vehicles that we do now, and they get re-built (note, not replaced) every three years due to the much higher mileage and ever advancing technology. The central ownership (there is some doubt whether the tech companies can be trusted not abuse such a monopolistic position) allows the government to mandate the introduction of the latest environmental technology as it becomes available, not the current 14 year cycle.

Money saving... we'd be spending 10% or less of the current individually owned fossil fuel car (future generations are going to look back and think we were nuts. And they'd be right.)

Ethically... Well, one of the really exciting aspects is that it squares the problem of the Carbon Prices disproportionately disadvantaging the poor. Quite the contrary, it democratises land transport.

These half sized robo EVs would not need to platoon that is unnecessary and does not offer much of an energy saving and probably adds to crash risks

Instead you just make them aerodynamic in themselves which would be very possible.
People think trains are super energy efficient, they actually are not because they require huge additional infrastructure like train stations and they mostly do not regen either plus they stop and start more often than smaller robo EVs would need to do

I also agree regarding the refurb these robo EVs rather than trash them
500,000 miles done, gut it out, replace the seats for new ones, replace the battery packs and if necessary the electric motor and off you go for another 500,000 miles and just keep repeating until scrapping makes more sense. Most the car could last 20 years rather than 5 years doing this

Energy required for land transport with these half sized EVs will be on the order of less than 40TWh...which is tiny its only about a 12% increase in electricity demand more or less nothing. We will probably see no increase in electricity demand as further appliance and lighting efficiency kicks in

half sized robo EVs doing a couple of million miles before retirement will make land transport more or less 100% green at negative cost. Esp sicne we wont need to direct £5 billion a year on rail subs

Also agree there is no need for expansion of rail or airports or even roads if robo EVs come into existence

Piddles

GreatApe wrote: »

These half sized robo EVs would not need to platoon that is unnecessary and does not offer much of an energy saving and probably adds to crash risks

This is probably the only thing you've said that I substantially disagree with. At high speeds it makes a significant difference, aerodynamic efficiency can only only go so far. But it's much more than that. AVs operate on "degrees of certainty", that is how all the various sensors agree on speed, location, surroundings, etc. The greater the certainty the faster they can go. With platooning, there is an element of pooling of sensors to increase certainty and increase speed. At lower speeds, it's also about road capacity. In city centres in shared spaces, platooning makes a more pleasant environment for pedestrians (think urban trams).

GreatApe

Piddles wrote: »

This is probably the only thing you've said that I substantially disagree with. At high speeds it makes a significant difference, aerodynamic efficiency can only only go so far. But it's much more than that. AVs operate on "degrees of certainty", that is how all the various sensors agree on speed, location, surroundings, etc. The greater the certainty the faster they can go. With platooning, there is an element of pooling of sensors to increase certainty and increase speed. At lower speeds, it's also about road capacity. In city centres in shared spaces, platooning makes a more pleasant environment for pedestrians (think urban trams).

I am not going to be out protesting about platooning if it works great its a very small side benefit but I do not think it is required or the most likely outcome

Instead of platooning these 3 man 85cm wide robo EVs I would imagine there would be standard width 185cm 3 seat per row robo EVs. One the size of a model 3 (minus front trunck and a smaller rear boot) could seat 9 now bolt 3 together front to back so you have a 12 meter long robo EV seating 27 passengers. Such a robo EV would get somewhere around 150 passenger miles per kWh

Platooning the small 3 seat 'half EVs' wont get to 150 passenger miles per kWh and there really is no need to try and go beyond 150 passenger miles per kWh. London to Edinburgh for less than 3kWh of electricity per passenger 45p for the fuel. 0.1 pennies per mile per passenger.....33 x more energy efficient than a single person in a single Tesla

So something like 3 seat half EVs for city and short motorways and tunnels and 27 seat larger robo EVs (roughly 3 model 3s bolted together) for longer motorway trips

Either way robo EVs solve pretty much everything

Piddles

Oh dear, there seems to be a complete lack of imagination.

It (the government) also says it plans to spend £50bn on improving roads.

Electric cars 'will not solve transport problem,' report warns

GreatApe

Piddles wrote: »

Oh dear, there seems to be a complete lack of imagination.

Electric cars 'will not solve transport problem,' report warns

Self drive software is more important than anything else including EVs

Even if EVs dont work (they will), self drive petrol fleets will cut energy usage by as much as 80-90%

IF self drive software existed but EVs did not exist you would have fleets of self drive petrol cars

1: Only the most efficient petrol cars would be bought by the fleets both for cost and probably regulation. This cuts energy by say 20%

2: The driving will be as efficient as the best human drivers rather than the average human driver. This cuts energy by say 20%

3: Half sized tandem 3 seat will mostly replace the current full sized 5 seat cars. This cuts energy by say 50%

4: Software and mass usage of fleets allows cars to drive an average 2.5 passengers per car rather than 1.25 today. This cuts energy by say 50% as it cuts car miles by 50%

All those added could result in a 84% cut in car oil energy usage

Transport energy problems are solved mostly by software, the software gets us to 80-90% of decarb while EVs are needed for the final 10-20%

markin

A Renault Twizy could possibly go 900KM on a single charge with a new carbon battery, 600KM should be easy. (Currently 35miles on pre 2015 battery)


Robert Murray-Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-gdUww_oQ


"Nickel Ride app ... and request a ride for free. The company uses advertising revenue to pay for the drivers and cars. They have advertising in the app, on the outside of the cars, and on a screen inside the vehicles. I’m sure tips are accepted also."


"Nickel Ride started off with neighborhood electric vehicles (similar to golf carts) about a year ago, but have recently upgraded to the Nissan Leaf."


https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/26/nickel-ride-finds-evs-are-so-affordable-they-can-give-rides-for-free/

GreatApe

Half sized 100 mile range self drive EVs

Think model 3 cut in Half but with 10kWh battery pack rather than 50-75kWh
~750 kg mass & 18kW super charger to get the car from 20% charge to 80% charge in 20 mins
~$20,000 so 50% of the price of a model 3 even though the biggest cost the battery is 1/5th the size so only 20% of the cost for the battery

600,000 mile range for 10,000 cycles of the battery

Estimated Per mile cost

3.5 cents capital and interest
1.0 cents electricity
1.0 cents maintenance
1.0 cents other

Charge 10 cents a mile and you have a very compelling vehicle
You can even share that cost among upto 3 passengers

Long range 300 mile version with 30 kWh battery pack can also be produced but a fleet operator might only need 3% of their fleet as long range and 97% as standard range

Software allows the transport fleet to match average usage not peak usage.
No longer will you need 5 seater 2 ton SUVs with space for 5 plus the dog and enough space to carry luggage for a 2 week holiday. Nor will you need a model x or y able to carry 7 and do 0-60 in 3 seconds. The fleet can be produced to match average needs which is 1-2 people and with an average trip in the uk of only 8 miles a 100 mile robo EV can serve 10 passengers over a 5 hour period (15mph average in the city like London) then supercharge for 20 mins the go out for another 10 passengers and 5 hours and repeat